I dont have a problem with Thich Nhat Hanh or his teachings. I dont take issue with anyone writing anything for that matter. But how many more books will be written on these subjects? Haven't they already been done before many,many times?

How many books can you count in the self-help or religious sections of your local bookstore promoting the path to happiness or the path to peace? There is no such thing. Absolutely none. Permanent happiness or permanent peace simply cannot exist. If there was, by now in our history wouldnt it have been possible to find out what it is? Why is that? Mainly because as soon as you create the path to peace, you automatically create the path to war. They go hand in hand. One cannot survive without the other. Counter-terrorism assumes terrorism.

If you practice a method by which you maintain a "peaceful" state of mind all of the time, then you are not in synch with what is going on around you. The world around us is absolute chaos. Our mind provides meaning and signifigance to what is actually a chaotic movement. We're living in a big fairy tale. Everyone has their "own" views and their "own individual" beliefs and experiences which create their "reality". This is easy enough to see. You dont need a book to tell you that. The issue occurs when a person believes things should be a certain way and that everything else is not correct. This creates a neurotic state of being. My personal experience shows that as long as human beings believe that their is such a thing as permanent happiness or peace, that unhappiness and war will always exist.

So it may be asked, wouldnt it be of more benefit for people to be aware of their environment, practice peace, happiness or some method to "better our world"? My answer to that is why? I have no way of seperating myself from my environment or the people around me. The situation that the world is in is due to human beings and I am part of that. I cant seperate myself from that, no matter how hard I try. If I try "practicing peace", how am I any different from the other person who believes that things should be a certain way and everything else is not correct? I am not a pessimist, nor do I have any objections towards any movement of any kind. People will continue to try methods by which to "save" the planet or everything else. But our so-called human intelligence is the cause of it. I'm afraid theres no where to go but our own self-destruction. The planet will shake us off like a bad cold. Its funny how animals and other life-forms of "lower" intelligence can co-exist(albeit not in a touchy-feely way like we'd like to)according to nature without the use of policemen, guns, bombs, meditation, charity, etc. Somehow even with all of our intelligence and methods, we still dont get it.

It is truly amazing to me just how sarcastic a reviewer can be when it comes to a topic that causes him such incredible discomfort. Steinglass repeats that he is just that often in the course of his review. Could it be that using words like love are not just uncomfortable to him but that he sees himself as representative of a particular segment of the reading public? Is he the kind of person who knows his history and its theories but has not yet fastened onto a strong religious inner life? That may indeed be so. And if so, his comments come across as both insensitive and self-congratulatory. I am neither Buddhist nor as historically informed as Steinglass but I do know sincere efforts at wanting something we can all mostly agree would be wonderful, bringing home the troops, repairing the incredible damage we have done to Iraq (and other countries), mourning all the dead and wounded in a respectful manner, etc. I applaud Salon for reviewing this book; I would have preferred a more sensitive and thoughtful reviewer.

The easiest way to start winning is to stop losing, grasshopper.

If it wasn't for the fact that Thich Nhat Hanh was saying something you want to hear about Iraq, you might be more critical of what he really means when he says something like true love doesn't destroy the object of it's love. What makes this statement so deliciously ironic coming from a Zen Buddhist in general and Thich Nhat Hanh in particular is that the object of true love is indestructible anyway no matter what you do to "it." Neither your actions nor your emotions do anything at all in reality because there is nothing to acheive and nothing to do.

Engaged Buddhism is an oxymoron. The various reasons why Thich Nhat Hanh has been able to start this religious movement are directly related to his involvement in the politics of the Vietnam war. This history was only briefly touched upon in the book review but basically he has managed to turn his political past into a religious movement just like Pat Robertson has done with the 700 Club. The same sort of thing is going to happen over the next twenty years or so as moderate Muslim scholars start writing anti-war pamphlets in English and building up political/financial backers in the West. We in the West are desperate to find exotic spokespeople to say things that we ourselves could say if anybody would listen. But somehow it just sounds better when Thich Nhat Hanh or the Dalai Lama tells us that we should be nice to other people. Bono, being Irish and hence somewhat exotic, seems to have figured out the hustle lately and now he too has become a spokesperson for Being Nice To People.

But Zen, like every religion, is compatible with and expressed in every activity human beings do, even warfare. Not that you should therefore go out and start a war but you can be Zen in war just as much as you can be Zen in love. Love and War are both problems. Zen has an anceint history of involvement in warfare that extends even up to modern times. Zen monks were even active participants in the Imperial Japanese army during World War II. Or, to give another example, have you ever heard of a Shaolin Monk, or read their history?

Overall, I guess I mean to make the two following points. First, Western religions have just as much of a deep tradition and literature of non-violence and peace as Eastern religions if you choose to draw it out and emphasize it. But Western religious leaders have almost all been thoroughly discredited as spokespeople for anything good in Leftist circles because of politics. Eastern religions have not been subjected to this same critical apparatus and so celebrities from eastern religions have not been discredited as spokespeople for Being Nice To Other People. Second, if the Buddha were alive today, there would be no celebrities.